Google Glassholes, GET OFF our ROADS, thunder lawmakers in seven US states Seven US states are looking into banning wearable computers like Google Glass while driving, shortly after a high-profile court case in California where a Glasshole got off scot-free. Cecilia Abadie was stopped and cited for wearing her Google Glass but was later let off the ticket because of a lack of proof that the specs …
Anyone who says you need 100% concentration on the road ahead is talking out of their arse.
Peripheral vision is highly valuable (with racing/rally driving you practically never look at whats directly in front of you unless you want to crash). Rear-view and wing mirrors are indispensable and a requirement to pass your test. Checking your speed, engine temps, dash information - all essential to driving.
So; to say a pair of glasses that can provide a graphical HUD to display this information in one place WILL cause you to crash is utter bollocks.
Obviously they would need to implement some way of preventing the user from reading their emails/text. But IMO, those users who want to read their emails while driving will just go straight for their mobile phone and do it anyway! So whats the point?
Why penalise those of us who would like to see practical uses applied to this technology to spite those that would flaunt this privilege?
Completely agree, if you need 100% concentration to drive, I am worried, I think BMW drivers fit into that category... the last 3 times i was nearly killed by another drive its been a BMW. I am just glad most other drivers give plenty of space so my emergency braking at 70 didn't cause me to be rear ended!
It used to be Volvo drivers. Because of all the safety features and because they were built like tanks. The point would be that you have to be a little bit scared for your own safety to pay sufficient attention. If you feel invulnerable you're lulled into a false sense of security.
Personally I think they should be banned outright. They have the potential for far more intrusion into your personal life and that of pretty much anyone who appears in frame than Android already does - after all they are linked to your phone, and facial recognition is already hooked into Fartbook and probably more - the modern 8-core pocket servers already unlock when the right person looks at them, and we already know the NSA just leeerrrrvs Droid phones. So imagine what they'll do with Glass? They must be wetting themselves with excitement. And they'll KNOW what you've been looking at whilst driving... and not just the pretty ladies! You cause an accident? "Can we see your mobile browsing history, sir?"
Certainly easy enough to use a gyro or combination of accelerometers to detect head orientation and throw a loud *BEEP* into the headphones if it detects you nodding off. Possibly not foolproof, but without actually looking at the eye and scanning for the visibility of an iris/pupils, a possibly useful helper.
But hey, let's ban it instead.
There were no seat belts or air bags in cars. People drove with doors unlocked and there were no crush zone to protect the occupants. People who did stupid things usually didn't get a second chance. Darwin's law seemed to work.
Today we have stupid people fiddling with mobes and walking into trains, walking off piers, walking into traffic. Maybe they get a second chance, maybe they don't. But there's no 'protection'. It's them against solid objects.
So.... sure, use your Glass, or whatever. But have the car detect that it's on and disable the airbags, unlock the driver's door and seatbelt. Do something stupid and you'll pay for it. Let Darwin decide.
I'm sure to be downvoted from those who either want me to "think of the children" or repeal Darwin's law. But people need to take responsibility for their own actions. Passing laws hasn't done it yet.
People drove with doors unlocked
Silly question but, unless you're driving in a really bad part of town or travelling with young children (who should be in the back anyway), why would you lock the doors? In a crash, I would rather have a small chance of the doors being jammed, than an almost certainty.
As for the rest of the post, this belongs in the "all cars should have no seat belts and a nine inch iron spike in the middle of the steering wheel" field of fuckwittery that seems to infect some people. Fine. You first.
"...why would you lock the doors?"
My thoughts exactly. But not, unfortunately, the thoughts of the people who designed my car. Once it reaches ~10kph, all the doors lock. And they stay locked, even when stopped, until you either take out the key (which you can't do until the car is in Park with the handbrake on), or press the 'lock/unlock' switch on the driver's armrest (which is not much use for resting your arm anyway, as there are so many control switches on it)
Many of the innovations in my car I like (electric seat adjustment, auto phone linking, steering wheel controls for practically everything), but the door locking thing I really don't understand. I mean, it has child locks on the rear doors, should I ever be foolish enough to transport a child, so why lock me in evrytime I drive?
The locked door debate is a tradeoff. The thought behind it is that a locked door makes the door part of the car frame in the event of a crash, making the side sturdier and better able to absorb impact: meaning the passenger compartment is less likely to crumple and trap the passengers. Also, a locked door has the risk of coming open during the accident, and in the event of no seat belt or a failure of the belt, someone can get thrown out of the vehicle then: statistically much more likely to result in a fatality.
OTOH, I can spot the other side of the coin. Some people want the door to loosen and tend to open out in an accident since there's the risk otherwise of the door physically jamming into the frame and making it impossible to open: itself a fatality risk in the event of a fire or sinking.
a locked door makes the door part of the car frame in the event of a crash, making the side sturdier and better able to absorb impact:
This is not true.
The *door catch* does all the above, and is essential for bodyshell stability for the reasons you have outlined.
The *lock* merely prevents the handle from opening the door. It thus makes the frame no stronger in an impact, but does prevent rescuers from getting to casualties.
Vic.
The *lock* merely prevents the handle from opening the door. It thus makes the frame no stronger in an impact, but does prevent rescuers from getting to casualties.
Which can engage in the twisted metal of an accident. See my point? Plenty of people have had their unlocked doors open and then get thrown out and killed as a result.
> Which can engage in the twisted metal of an accident.
*What* ?
> See my point?
No. You appear to be claiming magical properties for a door lock that it simply does not have. It's a lock - no more, no less.
You've not worked in the car industry, have you?
> Plenty of people have had their unlocked doors open and then get thrown out and killed as a result.
[ Citation needed ]
If the catch fails - leading to the door opening in a collision - the lock would have done precisely *nothing* to have prevented that failure. It is the catch that holds the door closed, not the lock.
Vic.
The lock disengages the catch from the door handle's wire. If the handle wire gets pulled during the accident (distinct possibility if the door gets bent and it goes taut), it could engage the catch and open the door Here, it isn't just me. NHTSA follows this philosophy. In addition, it wants to prevent doors opening while rolling. Read up:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/DoorLocks/DoorLocks_NPRM.html
> If the handle wire gets pulled during the accident (distinct possibility
Like I said, you've never worked in the automotive industry, have you?
> http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/DoorLocks/DoorLocks_NPRM.html
This basically disagrees with your premise. For example, from the (small) section on Door Locks :-
"We are proposing to retain the existing requirements for door locks largely as is"
"All exterior door locks must be capable of being unlocked from the interior of the vehicle"
If you go through the article, you'll notice that it pertains to specifications for the "door latch". This si what I previously referred to as a "door catch" - feel free to substitute the US term for mine fi you like.
What you should note, however, is that the proposal is to ensure the correct operation of door latches/catches - *not* door locks. Your "supporting" material is arguing with you...
Vic.
And now you're contradicting yourself, because we're BOTH arguing about the handle wire. I have already acknowledged that the lock basically disconnects the handle wire from the latch. I'm saying you WANT this in an accident because you want to reduce the odds of the door opening DURING the accident (raising the risk of you being thrown out as it opens; a distinct possibility with older cars that had the belt affixed to the door instead of the post; basically put, you're better off IN the car during the accident, and let the frame absorb the energy). The reason being that if the accident involves the door deforming in some way (for example, a side collision), this deformity can cause the door handle wire to go taut, (much like something flying into a balloon string) and potentially engage the latch if it's still engaged because the door is unlocked.
Under the scenario your describe, it wouldn't matter if the door was locked or not. After the accident, one should be able to unlock the door, thus re-engaging the handle wire to the lock, and then try to open the door, unless (as you say) the door is physically wedged in place, meaning you're stuck either way. And if the accident is such that the latch itself physically fails, then as you say the state of the lock is irrelevant and the whole argument is moot: whatever happens happens regardless of the lock state.
I am not going to donvote you because I don't think "I disagree" should be a downvote, but please remember that in the late 60s nearly 8000 people a year were killed on British roads and now, with more traffic, more people and much, much faster cars, it's more like 2500.
Both are excessively large numbers, but a threefold improvement isn't bad.
And this, like the "no mobile while driving" is very hard to enforce, actually even harder. The object in question is small and difficult to see (and on the off-window side in continental european cars)
So this becomes another one of those "rarely enforced" laws that get people in the wrong mindset of "all traffic laws are useless / can be ignored easily" and the result is the 2.2m wide car on the 2m wide lane (restricted space due to repair work) because "No police so who cares..."
Is on my drivers license. It got there a few years ago when I couldn't read the silly charts at the DMV that were poorly lit and too far away. Of course, I don't very much, but we now have a problem. I could become a glasshole and have them with nice "CORR LENS" which my license says, but wearing them would be illegal. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
As for "wearable computers": Many modern pacemakers (I worked on one about 15 years ago) have computers in them, and they are indeed implanted inside your body. Talk about "wearable". Would the law prohibit these as well? I note that the description of the Wyoming law (in the comments above me) might not, but one must always deal with the unintended consequences. I'm sure there will be many before this all gets sorted out.
"Nobody is safe while Congress is in session!"
One post touched on it, but that's all. It would be simplicity itself to test the extent of distraction of these in the lab. There have been dozens of experiments over the years of the required basic type; such as what images a baby responds to; or the effect of Corpus callosotomy (splitting the brain in a last-ditch to cure disabling epilepsy). And I expect most of us have had our peripheral vision tested at the opticians (I will tomorrow).
It is astonishing - and a little bit devastating - how little control we really have. But until intelligent people learn that - from the abundant empirical evidence - they think they are very much in control. Where conscious control is concerned, common sense is largely a product of fallacy.
Anyone dumb enough to wear Google Glass isn't smart enough to operate a motorized vehicle safely. I'll bet the lawyers make these fools wish they had never heard of Google Glass when the judgments are in tens of millions for negligent homicide. If you're dumb enough to where google Glass when driving then you're dumb enough to spend the rest of your life in prison. You are definitely a Google Glasshole.
And when Google Glass manages to prevent an accident due to pertinent information being right there when needed...
...we'll never know about it. I'd like to say "because accidents not happening isn't news", but more likely because it will be impossible, because fuckwits from the Peanut Gallery are colluding however unintentionally with fuckwits in government to get it banned BECAUSE IT JUST NEEDS TO BE BANNED. Oh, and glassholes. The way that word is spat out here makes it sound like it begins with an N.
I guess all Glassholes should get on the bus eh? The back of the bus?
I also wonder how long until cancer cases or other incidental physical harm are reported for "Glass" use. Cancer links have already been reported for mobile phones kept close to the body for long periods; both head and breast cancers adjacent to the mobile location!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
